Quote:


Mine was a number from "three to seven".  I believe that the examiner was counting the strokes of the pen and direction since some numbers require lifting the pen and straight then curved stokes.  The whole thing was geared for "fear" factor.

Regards.

Canadian Crusader, 

What you speak of could only be done by adding sensitivity (and this would only work for the EDA tracing).  When sensitivity is added, the software notes this on the chart.  If someone increased sensitivity right before the key number, the examinee would see it on the chart and more importantly, so would the QC.  Such an ethical violation, though it might not change the result of the actual exam, could result in the termination of the examiner's certification, or employment with his agency.  That you should be able to fiind in DoDPI literature; it was addressed in detail in a course I attended.

Also, a flat chart with one "spike" is not the typical stim result.  A peak of tension type response is much more likely.

Anonymous,

While a bliind test may be a better way of proving to someone the exam works, the present method is by no means a fraud.  Yes, you have to "sell" the stim chart by DoDPI guidelines regardless of how obvious the response is (or is not).  But it is not a flim flam.  Most examiners I know do something similar to what I explaiined or at least show the examinee the chart.   

The reason most agencies did away with blind stim tests was the thought that a stim might not always produce a strong response, since this "deception" has no consequence.  The fear is that instead of doing good for the examinee's psychological set, it might do harm if the examiner has trouble determining the number.  That may or may not be a valid concern

Also, the purpose of the exam is to determine the truthfulness of the examinee, not impress him with the ability to identify a concealed number. That runs the risk of turning the exam into a side show act.   

While the "selling" of the stim might have some value, I don't think it's essential to running a valid, accurate exam.  I believe the value of running a chart to make adjustements, and identify potential artifact problems, is the main benefit of the stim.  And like I said, the  stim charts usually sell themselves.   

I often see a correlation of weak response to the stim key and strong response to one or the other type of CQT question.  This, to me, indicates that a person who is concerned about a certain type of exam question is so psychologically focused on that issue, that the stim causes less psycho- or physiological response.  So it really wasn't needed.  In other words, you guys are making too much of the significance of the stim.

Mark,

I like how you put that.  And I'd agree that other factors can cause a response -- though as in the past, I'd argue they would not be as consistant a factor (throughout the exam) as deception-- and could account for the relatively small number of errors. 

I like your idea for the blind stim with no number as a choice.  However, that looks like a research study idea, not a part of each exam.  You make a good point by menthioning three charts.  A blind stim is a searching Peak of Tension, which should require three charts to make a good determination.  But that seems like a lot of wasted time and effort for something I don't feel is that important to the accuracy of the results of the actual examination.

Regards to all.  Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.